DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Terrazas, 944 P.2d 1194.

132 citing documents.

  • State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Connor 161 P.3d 596 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    (holding the state bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the other act occurred and that the defendant committed the act).
  • State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State v. Miles 123 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    “Substantial evidence is proof that reasonable persons could accept as sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Aguilar 97 P.3d 865 Ariz. 2004
  • State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
  • State v. Smyers 73 P.3d 610 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
    163 ¶ 37, -84 , -98 (1997); , 274-75 ¶ 24, -11 (App.1999).
  • State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Prion 52 P.3d 189 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Garcia 28 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. Nordstrom 25 P.3d 717 Ariz. 2001
  • State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
  • State v. French 7 P.3d 128 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2000
    ¶ 2 In the second petition for post-conviction relief, French raised the following claims: (1) , was a significant change in law, requiring the state to show that an accused committed other acts by clear and convincing evidence; (2) the court’s instruction characterizing prior acts as “bad acts” , (3) the sentence h
  • State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence that defendant committed prior bad acts).
  • State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Gilfillan 998 P.2d 1069 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Van Adams 984 P.2d 16 Ariz. 1999
    404(b) (West Supp.1998); , Gulbrandson, 184 Ariz. at 61 , 906 P.2d at 594 ; Williams, 182 Ariz. at 552 , 898 P.2d at 501
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Mills 995 P.2d 705 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
  • State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • State v. Vigil 986 P.2d 222 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    -84 , -98 (1997); , Ariz. R. Evid.
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
    The defendant argues that the court articulated an improper standard since “to be admissible in a criminal case, the profferer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the prior bad acts were committed and that the defendant committed the acts,”
  • State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Garland 953 P.2d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997
  • State v. Lee 944 P.2d 1204 Ariz. 1997